Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis with the consistent ratio of injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is an extremely common form of chronic joint disease which can affect the knees and other joints of older adults, leading to debilitating disability in the knee and consequent reduction in quality of life. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are effective for maintaining long-term beneficial effects without increasing the risk of intra-articular infection. However, few studies have compared the relative value of HA and PRP for OA treatment. PRP is more effective than HA for OA treatment in recent studies of this topic. We systematically searched Medline, SpringerLink, Embase, Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and OVID for all articles published through May 2018. Any study was included that compared the effect of HA and PRP (consistent treatment cycle and frequency of injection) on patient’s pain levels and functionality improvements. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze data regarding these two primary outcomes. We included 10 total studies in the present meta-analysis. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC; MD: 10.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.13 to 11.62, p < 0.00001), Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; MD: −20.69, 95% CI: −24.50 to −16.89, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 94%), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; MD: −1.50, 95% CI: −1.61 to −1.38, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 90%) differed significantly between the PRP and HA groups. Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOSs) did not differ significantly ( χ 2 = 23.53, I 2 = 41%, p = 0.11). Our hypothesis appears not to be confirmed because PRP and HA did not differ significantly with respect to KOOS score. However, the IKDC, WOMAC, and VAS scores differed significantly. Thus, based on the current evidence, PRP appears to be better than HA at achieving pain relief and self-reported functional improvement. Ia, meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".